Butt's bleak Brent budget forecast for 2014/15 and beyond

In a presentation to the Labour Party's Brent Forum at the weekend, current leader Council leader Muhammed Butt, warned members of a looming budgetary crisis in 2014/15. There was an expected 11.8% cut (£19.3m).

Even worse, there would be 7% annual cuts until 2020 threatening the future of local government as we know it.

In 2014 the Council would have to bring forward difficult decisions that they had not expected to have to make until 2015/16. He promised 'more and better consultations' and put forward the idea of a 'community budget - giving residents the choice of which servces to protect' over a 6-9 month consultation period 'using innovative methods to reach more residents'.

This of course falls far short of a 'needs budget' that would be used as a campaigning tool against the Coalition cuts and benefit changes, uniting the Council with voluntary organisations, community groups, trades unions and residents.

The Brent Fightback slogan 'Enough is Enough' seems justified by Butt's bleak view of the future in the sldie entitled 'What Future for Local Government?'

• •Growing demand for social care services
• •By 2020 – ‘non statutory’ spend will be reduced from 2/3rd to 10% of total budget
• •This means: no youth centres, no parks maintenance, no street cleaning, no employment support, no arts funding & no voluntary sector support

The options he then gives, in the absence of any widespread national campaign against the cuts and in defence of local government,  do not measure up to the enormity of the challenge.

•National 

• •Increased funding from central government
• •Allow us more freedom over tax and revenue
• •Remove Statutory Obligations 

•Local

• •Integration with partners – voluntary sector, businesses, NHS, police
• •Greater involvement of local residents in the design & implementation of services

•

20p for 20 minutes reduced parking charge on the cards

Brent Council Executive has agreed in principle to a reduced charge of 20p for the first 20 minutes of parking following vociferous protests from motorists and complaints from small businesses that their trade on local high streets was being affected. Opposition councillors had claimed that the present policy favoured large supermarkets,  which offer free parking,  at the expense of small shops.

Cllr Jim Moher, lead member for Highways and Transportation, had already announced at full Council that Brent was to go over to a 'linear' charging system where motorists get charged by the minute rather than in blocks. The block system meant that there was a steep increase between blocks (£1.50 for 40 minutes and £2.40 for one hour), Moher hopes that the linear system will  be fairer and also  increase revenue.

Officers are now at work to find ways of meeting the £0.8m cost of the reduced first 20 minutes charge.

Northwick Park A&E falls well below national targets

The North West London Hospital Trust is failing to meet targets for A&E according to figures submitted to the Brent Health Partnership Overview and Scrutiny Committee LINK.  The national target is that patients should spend no more that four hours in the department from entry to exit. The annual average for Northwick Park (Type one) is 90.55% and in the week leading up to the report was only 73.71%. One quarter of patients were there for more than four hours.

Central Middlesex A&E figures, on a much lower total of patients, were 97.05% and 95.45% respectively.

Commenting on Northwick Park, Tina Benson, Deputy Director of Operations at the Trust, states:

Gladstone Park gains window of opportunity on forced academy conversion

Gladstone Park Primary Reception Class  December 2012
The Department for Education has told the governing body of Gladstone Park Primary that they will delay making a decision on the proposed sponsor until February 11th. The DfE had been expected to name a sponsor last week.

The letter, which appears on the school's website LINK broadens the grounds for forced academisation:

Where schools are underperforming (my emphasis) or in an Ofsted category, Ministers have been very clear that the Department should lead on brokering sponsored Academy solutions. This is because the Department's sponsor assessment process and regular contact officials  have with sponsors means that the Department is best placed to provide a complete view on an individual sponsor's current capacity and capability to deliver.

The designation of 'underperforming' clearly widens the scope for forced academisation and confirms that this is a strategy designed to escalate the conversion of local authority primary schools to academy status.

 Offering  the governing body the opportunity to give its views and ideas 'before the proposed sponsor is decided' (Note - not whether academisation is the the best solution for the school and one favoured by the governing body, staff and parents) the DfE Brokerage and School Underperformance Division delay the decision until February 11th.

However, having offered that limited opportunity, the DfE makes it clear that 'formal consultation' only takes place AFTER the governing body has agreed that the school should have a particular sponsor:

...The Department believes it is most appropriate to meet with the governing body to discuss Academy status as it is the body responsible and accountable for the school's performance and strategic direction, and can make the decision to apply for an Academy Order. We recognise the importance of consulting locally and this is a requirement before any school can open as an Academy.The formal consultation is usually started when the proposed sponsor has been identified by the Department, the governing body has met with, and agreed to be sponsored by the sponsor, and the proposal has been given Ministerial approval to be taken forward. As the key stakeholder groups (parents, staff, the local authority and the wider community) are represented on the governing body in elected and non-elected roles, it is well-placed to take this decision.

There is a tacit recognition of the potentially conflicting claims of the DfE and ministers and the local democratic role and responsibilities of the governing body. 

Reading between the lines it appears that the Department wants to avoid appearing to ride rough-shod over current democratic arrangements (as it did at Downhills) by recognising the role of the governing body, but at the same time seeks to have the deal signed, sealed and delivered in advance of the consultation.

A key word is the 'usually' in the passage in bold. Perhaps there is space here for the governing body to insist that the consultation includes alternatives to academy conversion including the school managing its own improvement in collaboration with Brent's School Improvement Service or some other agency, or forming a soft or hard federation with another school.

It is important that Brent Council steps in to offer Gladstone Park support in such an approach.